A gay gene?

One of the most hotly contested issues in the debate about genetics and lifestyle is the gay gene—the idea that homosexuals are born homosexuals. When the idea of a gay gene was first seriously proposed in the early 1990s it was accepted by some experts but it was rigorously questioned and even ridiculed by many other scientists, activists and thinkers.

In many ways the gay gene debate cuts to the heart of the discussion about human nature and genetics, about how much our destinies are determined for us by our biology, and how much they are determined by us through making choices and exercising our moral autonomy.

Credits

Comments (16)

Eric Glare :

01 Jul 2013 5:25:24pm

Not mentioned: bisexualityHow can there be a credible discussion of genetic determinism if the second most predominant phenotype is neglected? Bisexuality connects some of the alternative arguments such as sexuality being hardwired or fluid. There is no need for flip-flopping stances if sexuality is seen as a continuum with a large proportion (a majority?) of men who have sex with men being somewhat bisexual. I think all participants retreated to the black box of 'it's more complex' rather than simply acknowledging the known diversity of homosexuality and sexuality more broadly. The continuum fits much better with a polygenetic plus environment cause of homosexuality.

CRISP :

01 Jul 2013 5:50:50pm

Interviewing two people who basically agree on everything makes for little or no counterpoint.

The only 'science' involved is the well-proven post-scientific theory that a lie repeated often enough becomes true. LeVay and Hamer's separate findings were roundly condemned and easily refuted at the time. They had been blinded by their own biases and desire to prove what they wanted to prove. No follow-up work has advanced the scientific validity of the "gay gene" one iota, but if you listen to the media and the commentariat, it is now an absolute scientific fact. It is anything but.

In pre-christian Europe and still today in much of Asia, the Pacific etc, sexuality is what you do, not what you are. Most societies have always accepted the fluidity of sexuality. The three Abrahamic religions are the exception, not the rule.

valerie yule :

01 Jul 2013 6:16:59pm

Range of human sexuality

As a clinical child psychologist, I saw the range of human sexuality that babies can be born with. Every combination of X and Y chromosomes, of anatomical variations, and so on.To divide people into straight and gay is quite ignoring the range of what people can be.

valerie yule :

01 Jul 2013 6:21:23pm

History of homosexuality - its part in civilisation

Religion, the arts and literature owe far more to homosexuals all over the world and thruout history than mere numbers would suggest. The combination of masculine and feminine attributes is extremely fertile.

There seems a purpose in having a proportion of homosexuals in society, to have a civilisation.

valerie yule :

01 Jul 2013 6:32:18pm

Homosexuality in human development.

Freud may be right about the infant being polymorphous perverse. Before these modern times, there was far more tolerance of homoerotic feelings in males and females.See Victorian novels! They were intolerant of homosexual genital behavior nevertheless.

In my adolescence in the 1940s, at my school and other schools, it was taken for granted that children would be exploratory of sex at primary age, but adult sexual urges would begin at adolescence with many teenagers having 'crushes' on older schoolmates or adults. These were tolerated. Most of these would gradually turn into interest in the opposite sex - or go along with it. Very few were obviously fixated with homosexual drives, and these continued. I only knew one like this in our years, and she was a popular girl. No intolerance.That is why I think teenagers up to the age of 17 or so should be free to explore their sexuality without being channeled into either strait or gay. These days this is done too soon.

Stephen Coates :

01 Jul 2013 6:38:58pm

I'll leave it up to scientists working in the genetics field to identify whether or not there is a gay gene, but I can affirm that I didn't choose to be heterosexual any more than I chose to be right-handed. In "Songs from Distant Earth", Arthur C. Clarke described a world in which people had their sexuality measured on a scale from 100% hetero to 100% homo and it's an idea I find intriguing, just as some right-handed persons are fairly competent writing, playing tennis or whatever with their left hand. It's an idea I'd like to see explored.

John W :

02 Jul 2013 9:35:06am

Being male (homosex or heterosex) is a genetic disease as well....female XX chromosome which one of those Xs lost a leg and became XY => is faulty was degenerated (corrupted) and now it is on the way out again, experiencing deletions resulting in more and more males infertile. Blue print for humans (and other mammals) is always Female. Every man is a woman first in the womb. So, all men are just corrupted/changed women really. Therefore, homosexuality in men is nothing surprising since they are women anyway!All this comes from science research = very basic facts.

John W :

02 Jul 2013 9:43:06am

Oh how silly can we be picking on sexuality? Men are just sexual...anytime anywhere anyhow!So, if a man masturbates (which we do often if healthy) is he homosexual? He must be = since having sex with a man (himself)!Oh gosh how silly can we just be? and a waist of time....lets work out how to improve homelessness in this country instead!!!!!!!!!!!!

Eric Glare :

03 Jul 2013 2:45:42pm

If we assume incorrectly as you do that gay people don't reproduce at all, how could humans evolve to not be able to reproduce? Remember evolution only works through reproductive fitness either individually or on fitness of populations to reproduce. As homosexuality is widespread in animales we have to assume that a certain amount is useful to the survival of a population but obviously detrimental beyond the point of restricting production of progeny. Just because we don't understand why evolution has allowed diversity of sexuality for millions of years does not make it a disease.

Pamela :

Kerry Muston :

05 Jul 2013 1:57:22pm

I grew up with a transgender brother - he was always female in his brain and is now a woman. It can't be genetic as he was the only one ever in the family history, but also can't be environmental as it was always there. I think it's something else and that humans as a species just sit somewhere on a gender scale from pure female to pure male.

Pertinax :

20 Jan 2014 5:23:07pm

Because things are more complex than that.

Genes often do several things and other effects may be selected for. It is also possible that a gene that lowers reproduction in an individual under certain environmental conditions could assist reproduction in other individuals e.g. siblings under different conditions.

Pertinax :

20 Jan 2014 7:06:06pm

They didn't explain the biology at the heart of the matter in detail, but concentrated on the politics.

Research has shown is that most men are aroused by pornography involving naked women, but not naked men. Some men however, are aroused by naked men but not naked women, and they have a different structures in a few regions of the brain.

This is a biological drive that has been shown to strongly, but not entirely, influence male sexual behaviour. As was stated, Twin studies have shown that about 50% of the cause is genetic. With environmental factors, e.g. hormone levels during development, also playing a role.

Female sexual arousal is not determined by simple visual stimulation.

O'Neill is hosting this particular discussion because he a Libertarian and opposed to genetic determinism and therefore anxious to point out the negatives.

Personally I think we are better off knowing the truth. Denying biology are arguing for freewill in sexual orientation led to making the issue a moral, legal and religious one with prosecution, persecution, discrimination and much unhappiness.

Promoting homosexuality as a lifestyle choice if it isn't won' make people happy.